Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Navya Nateshan, D/o. Mr. Nateshan – Appellant
Versus
S. Tulasi Bai, W/o. Beer Bahadur Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case details and proceedings (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding the transactions (Para 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on evidence and presumption (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. application of legal principles from precedent (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion of dismissal of the petition (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.12.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.25016/2021 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 07.01.2024 passed in C.C.No.50077/2017 by the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court is that the petitioner –accused is her friend and she has approached for financial help for her domestic purpose and promised to repay the same within 06 months. The complainant has lent amount of Rs.13,50,000/- (
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of a cheque remains unless rebutted by the accused, and failure to provide any evidence leads to conviction.
The presumption of cheque issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the evidential burden to the accused, who must rebut it to avoid conviction.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; if rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to establish borrowing.
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a cheque's signature is admitted, unless expressly rebutted.
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is justified when the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumption of cheque issuance for discharging a debt, shifting the evidential burden there....
The petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to upholding his conviction for dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defence against dishonour of a cheque.
Accused failing to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities cannot rebut Section 139 presumption in cheque dishonour cases; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent misca....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
